Another thing I think is fascinating is the idea that a sponsor program that makes itself exclusive-access is "elitist". I think that reflects upon a warped sense of entitlement that exists all over the affiliate world.

I view CorbinFisher.com as a corporation, and our affiliates as our franchises. We invest in them, they invest in us. We do have a mutual partnership, which is precisely why I decided to close off our affiliate program and make it invite-only.

That enables us to have customized, individualized, unique and original campaigns with every single remaining affiliate and work more and more with them, as opposed to possibly spending too much effort on an affiliate whose returns wouldn't be worth it.

Affiliates can represent sponsors - they can be the source of a surfers first impression of a sponsor. So controlling how you're being presented to surfers by affiliates is key.

How can a sponsor program with 1400 affiliates possibly track things to make sure people are being honest, ethical, and legal in how they promote you? You can't.

Too many franchises alse produce self-cannibalization, where franchises are no longer generating new business but just fighting amongst one another for business. Limiting franchises helps prevent that.

There is no divine right to promote a sponsor. That sponsor is perfectly entitled to pick and choose whatever affiliates they want or not have an affiliate program at all. The notion that when you luanch a paysite, you're now obliged to have an affilaite program almost as some sort of public service or bound duty is ludicrous.

As is the notion that every affiliate is worth 50%, I think. And I think that sponsor programs that exist to cater to the webmaster instead of to the surfer end up costing the industry in the long run by creating cynical, skeptical surfers that have likely been burned in the past and made distrustful of paysites, all because someone earned a huge commission off of them.